Abstract

Learner autonomy is a modern approach to language learning that requires maximum involvement of students in all the second language learning activities. This innovative concept has been successfully applied in the second language learning environment in Europe and many countries of Asia. This participation by language learners builds motivation and improves language proficiency. In this research, the researcher has endeavoured to measure the level of learner autonomy among BS English students of Southern Punjab. For this purpose, the researcher has accessed public and private sector universities of Southern Punjab as his population. These universities are Bahauddin Zakariya University Multan, BZU Layyah sub-campus, Islamia University of Bahawalpur, Ghazi University DG khan, Emerson University Multan, and Institute of Southern Punjab Multan. The learner autonomy questionnaire by I.P Egel (2003) was adopted to collect data from 600 learners from six universities in Southern Punjab. Data so collected was analyzed with the help of SPSS files version 22. Results have been presented in the form of graphs and tables.

Key Words

BS English, Southern Punjab, Education, Learner Autonomy, Students

Introduction

The modern era has witnessed a worldwide growth of second language teaching as an industry. Along with this growing interest, emerged the approach of learner autonomy in language education. The concept of learner autonomy crept into European language teaching in the 1980s and 90s while in other parts of the world, it is comparatively a recent phenomenon (Benson 2007). The English language has got a special status of L2 in Pakistan. English is taught here as a compulsory subject from primary to graduation level. Mostly it is taught in a formal setting at schools, colleges and universities. The English language enjoys the status of a prestigious language as it provides students with an opportunity for progress and prosperity. English is also a language of higher education, commerce, media and diplomacy. For these obvious reasons, Pakistani students want to learn English along with their national language and mother tongues.




Background of Learner Autonomy

We find the first mention of this concept in the modern language project launched by the council of Europe. The deliberations of this project appeared in the seminal report of Holec (1981).  Holec gave his famous and most quoted definition of learner autonomy in this report. According to this definition, autonomy is "the ability to take charge of one's own learning". Earlier studies on learner autonomy were published in the earliest issues of this journal named "Melanges Pedagogies". In 1976, some papers related to learner autonomy were presented at a seminar at Cambridge University. Self-directed study is one example of how this idea was put into practice. According to Boyer and Usinger (2015), self-direction is a technique of learning in which a shift of responsibility takes place from educator to learner. In this process, the learner takes control of his learning by active involvement in teaching-learning activities. For the successful application of this concept, self-access centres were set up in universities and secondary schools. Teacher training was also given importance. The debate about learner autonomy has been going on for a long time, but it has not always been about language.




Components of Learner Autonomy

Self-reliance, metacognitive methods, and social elements like a willingness to work in cooperation are all essential ingredients of the construct of autonomous learning. Goal-setting, choice of learning material, lesson planning, and self-evaluation are all examples of meta-cognitive methods. The dynamic model of learner autonomy combines in it components like Cognitive, meta-cognitive, action-oriented and affective factors of learner autonomy. It also provides descriptors to evaluate the learner's attitude, competencies and behaviours. Basically, three main dimensions of learner autonomy have been discussed in the literature. These three dimensions are: Physical, mental and psychological. Physical dimension relates to the choice and setting of a classroom, arrangement of chairs, whiteboard and other educational aids. The mental or cognitive aspect relates to the choice of material and mode of learning (Al-Jarrah et al., 2018). The psychological aspect relates to aptitude, attitude and motivation. All these aspects of learner autonomy call for the active role of learners that will culminate in taking control of their learning gradually. In Pakistani educational institutes, all the educational activities are geared towards the examination. These examinations are considered a big obstacle in the way of learner autonomy. So, autonomous learning practices call for a change in the traditional grade-oriented examination system. This demand also echoed during teacher interviews while the researcher was collecting data for this research project.  The alternative to the traditional examination system is self-evaluation.




Evolution in the Concept of Autonomy

As time goes on, the concept of "learner autonomy" is likely to be interpreted in a variety of ways. The concept of "autonomy" will be seen differently in the future due to shifts in prevailing political views, pedagogical approaches to language acquisition, technological advances, market demands, and educational goals.  Many recent studies contend that developing learners' capacity for self-reliance must be pursued keeping in view specific social contexts (Smith & Ushioda, 2009). Concept and meaning of the construct 'learner autonomy' change for people of different social and cultural contexts. So naturally, their practices to nourish learner autonomy also change. This difference in perspectives, including psychological, technical, sociological, and political-critical, reveal these distinctions (Dang, 2010; Healy, 2007). From a psychological standpoint, it is crucial to take into account students' unique personalities and learning styles. A good learning environment is crucial from a technological standpoint. How students engage with their surroundings is significant from a sociocultural and politically critical standpoint. First, it looks like they do not agree with each other or even go against each other at all. More specifically, it is thought of as the ability to give answers that go beyond what is usually asked (Boud, 1988). Each perspective highlights one or the other aspect of learner autonomy whereas the essential character of the construct remains the same. This essential character is the ability to comprehend and perform the learning process with responsibility and effectiveness.  They all look at how learners interact with their environment, how they can get what they want, how they can influence their community, and what their ideology is. One of the most key aspects is the interplay between the learner's individual traits which represent the psychological aspect and their environment which represents a technical component of the construct. Oxford (2003) suggests that these perspectives, how divergent they appear to be, are not antithetical to one another. Rather they complement each other and should be covered by researchers. Little (1999) is of the view that for different learners, autonomy takes different forms with their changing needs, their perceptions about their progress, their levels of maturity and their ages. Benson (2001) adopts a similar stance, stating that learner autonomy is a multidimensional concept that can take various shapes for different students. It may also manifest differently for the same student in different contexts and at different ages. Another concern related to this concept is that as the idea of learner autonomy has been popularized, it has no more been the sole domain of teachers and researchers. It is being supported and adopted by those who control the global market and they drag the concept of learner autonomy for the purposes it was not initially meant for. This phenomenon has brought significant changes in the concept. According to Pennycook (1997), the concept of autonomy is being dragged from a political to a psychological perspective. He says:

"The idea of autonomy has therefore moved rapidly from a more marginal and politically engaged concept to one in which questions are less and less commonly asked about the larger social or educational aims of autonomy. Broader political concerns about autonomy are increasingly replaced by concerns about how to develop strategies for learner autonomy. The political has become psychological."       




The Rationale for Learner Autonomy

Little (2003) has discussed three important reasons for making learners autonomous. According to his first argument learning will be more efficient when the learner is focused and is following a personal agenda. In other words, if the learner is reflectively involved in the learning process he will learn better. The second argument is about the proactive autonomy of the learner. According to this argument, if a learner sets his own goals and determines his own direction, the issue of motivation is automatically solved. The final reason he presented pertains specifically to the second language and/or foreign language learning. According to him, target language use plays a key role in language acquisition. Learners with greater autonomy in a learning environment and social setting would communicate freely in the target language, thereby enhancing their communicative skills.




Research Questions

1 What is the level of learner autonomy among BS English learners of Southern Punjab?

2 What are learners' views about the desirability of practising learner autonomy and its impact on the proficiency of BS English language learners of Southern Punjab?




Significance of Research

In Pakistan English has got the status of a foreign language. It enjoys high prestige as an international lingua franca. For South Asian countries it is a language of power and prosperity. Keeping these factors in mind, Pakistani learners are in dire need of quality English education. State-run educational institutions, where the majority of Pakistani students pursue their education, are incapable of providing state-of-the-art English instruction. Students in Pakistan ought to take responsibility for their education and engage in decision-making for their own benefit. Students should utilize information technology to educate themselves in novel and inventive ways, particularly in the face of a flood of information. Any discussion on how to learn a new language is inexorably linked to global issues about learner autonomy, and vice versa. Gardner and Miller (1999) pinpoint three reasons why teachers may want to help their students become more autonomous in language learning: it helps them become more self-confident, it has policy implications both inside and outside the classroom, and it is an integral part of language learning strategies. Kenny (1993) and other personality-focused academics believe that standard language courses may not always suit the needs and wants of all students. The stereotype of students as passive "consumers" of teaching frequently appears in teacher-centred language classrooms. They follow the instructions but do not actively participate in their education. According to Kenny (1993), language learners should be regarded as active participants in their own education rather than passive recipients. Benson (1997) and Pennycook (1997) both promoted a more political view of language teaching based on the notion that students should have more responsibility over their own education. These writers advocate a critical educational approach in order to assist students in becoming more independent in their language acquisition.

Research Methodology

The researcher has used a quantitative research method for the current study. A Likert scale questionnaire designed by I.P Egel (2003) was adopted to collect data from BS English learners of Southern Punjab. In quantitative research in social sciences questionnaire is widely used as a tool for data collection. Mostly Likert scale questionnaires are used which allow respondents to choose an option from strongly disagree to strongly agree against a given statement. These responses are then analyzed with the help of SPSS files to conclude the results. In the current study, the researcher has used a five-point Likert questionnaire for quantitative data analysis. According to Anderson (2005) "questionnaire has become the most used and abused means of collecting data". A carefully constructed questionnaire has the potential to generate valid and reliable results from collected data. Dornyei (2003) says that a good questionnaire is short and never exceeds four printed pages. He further says that it may not take more than 40 minutes to fill it. It should be phrased simply and clearly. It should be easy enough that respondents may understand it without much effort. The presence of a researcher is essential when respondents are filling out the questionnaire. He should be there to clarify or correct any statement in case of a mistake or difficulty. 

 For this research selected six universities of Southern Punjab and 600 BS English students were approached for data collection. The data so collected was analyzed with the help of SPSS. The results of the analysis were presented in the form of tables and graphs.




Research Setting and Population

BS English learners of Southern Punjab

constitute the population of this study. The researcher sampled six hundred students from six universities in Southern Punjab.

Results and Discussion

Sixty items of the Likert scale questionnaire

were grouped into six components that represented different components of the construct learner autonomy. The following table describes these six components of learner autonomy with their Cronbach's Alpha values.




 

Table 1. Describing Cronbach’s Alpha Value of the Questionnaire

Name of factor	No of items	Cronbach’s Alpha value
Goal setting	8	.669
Choice of content	6	.621
Role of teacher	9	.612
Group work	8	.652
Cognitive skills	5	.624
Intrinsic motivation	11	.709
Learner Autonomy questionnaire	60	.838

 

Table 2. Mean scores to represent students’ perceptions on the indicators of students’ autonomy

Indicators	Mean	Standard Deviation
Goal Setting	3.9602	.48318
Choice of Content	3.8615	.50157
Role of Teacher	2.4876	.44423
Group Work	3.7902	.47483
Cognitive Skills	3.8918	.53628
Intrinsic Motivation	3.8188	.47135

 




Table 4.7 describes the mean score along with the standard deviation for different indicators of learner autonomy. For instance, the mean score for the indicator "goal setting" is 3.9602 with a standard deviation of .48318 (mean=3.9602/5). As this value is greater than the mid-point so it indicates a higher level of learner autonomy for this indicator. The mean value for the indicator "choice of content" is 3.8615 (M=3.8615/5) with a standard deviation of .50157. This also indicates a higher level of autonomy for this indicator of learner autonomy. This indicator is the "role of the teacher. The mean score for this indicator is 2.4876 (M=2.4876/5) with a standard deviation of .44423. This value is slightly less than the mid-value (2.5). So it indicates a lower level of autonomy for this indicator. The mean score for indicator "group work" is 3.7902 (M=3.7902/5) with a standard deviation of .47483. This value is greater than the mid-value so indicates a higher level of learner autonomy for this indicator. The mean score for indicator "cognitive skills" is 3.8918 (M=3.8918/5) with a standard deviation of .53628. As the mean value is greater than the mid-point so it also indicates a high level of learner autonomy for this indicator. Similarly mean score for the indicator "intrinsic motivation" is 3.8188 (M=3.8188/5) with a standard deviation of .47135. It also indicates a higher level of learner autonomy for this indicator.

Figure 1



Goal Setting

 Goal setting is a component of proactive autonomy or higher-order autonomy as mentioned in chapter two of this dissertation. Respondents of this study remained cautious while answering this component of learner autonomy. The majority of the respondents agreed with the idea that they set their own goals as for their language learning is concerned (M=3.9602). No of respondents who strongly disagreed is very low. Similarly, those who strongly agreed with the idea are also in minority. The mean value of 3.9602 falls very close to value 4 which stands for agreeing in the Likert scale questionnaire. So the inclination of the majority of respondents was toward agreeing with the idea. For instance, 5.6% of the respondents strongly disagreed with the statement "1 usually set my own goals for each semester." and 3.3% of the students disagreed with this statement. 15.0% of students were neutral in their responses to this statement. 53.6% of students agreed with the idea that they have the capability and desire to set their own goals for each semester. Similarly, 22.6% of students strongly agreed with the idea that they usually set their language-related learning goals for every semester. The same trend is visible for other statements of this component "goal setting".

When we analyze this finding of quantitative data, we come to know that this is higher-order autonomy and is usually exhibited by the students of European and advanced countries. Learners from Asian countries are not able to show this kind of autonomy. Asian learners usually possess a reactive sort of autonomy in which goals and directions are set not by the learners. But once goals are set, these learners arrange their resources to achieve their targets. Littlewood (1999) has presented this reactive-proactive dichotomy and describes that proactive autonomy is higher-order autonomy whereas reactive autonomy is a lower level of autonomy. According to him, Proactive autonomy is usually found in Western cultures where democratic traditions are very strong. In a reactive type of autonomy, learners are unable to set their own direction but follow the pre-set direction to achieve their learning goals. A similar opinion was expressed by practising teachers during interviews for this dissertation. They said that Pakistani BS English students are devoid of the capability to have their own goals. However, they can choose learning materials and can take certain other decisions.




Choice of Learning Content

The next component of this construct was the choice of content. Here also the majority of the respondents (m=3.8615) seem to agree with the idea. Results show that the majority of BS English students from Southern Punjab make choices in the selection of learning content. They are not dependent on teachers in their choice of learning content. For instance, 3.2% of respondents strongly disagreed with the statement "I use other English books and resources of my own will". 10.4% of the learners disagreed with the idea of the selection of learning content without the help of a teacher. 16.9% of learners remained neutral regarding the choice of English books and other resources. 48.4% of learners agreed with the idea that they use other books and resources so for their English language learning is concerned. 21.2% of respondents showed a strong agreement with the idea of using other books and learning materials for their English as a second language. 

This result is in line with previous research that indicates that learners have the autonomy to choose learning content. The spread of internet facilities has given learners many opportunities to select learning material. Now language learners are not totally dependent on teachers for learning material. This aspect of autonomy corresponds to the political version of learner autonomy presented by Benson (2001) and the political-critical version of Oxford (2003). According to this aspect of learner autonomy, the learner should be critically aware of his rights and he should negotiate some of his rights and bring a change in the teacher-learner relationship. The researcher asked this question of choice of learning content to BS English learners during his visits for data collection. The learners reported that their teachers encourage them to search for learning material from different sources. Students reported that different teachers have different attitudes but mostly they honour their autonomy. Students use different educational sites and lectures on U-tube and search for relevant learning material. 




Role of Teacher

The third component of this construct is the role of the teacher. This component is actually an amalgamation of the role of teacher and teacher dependence. So the mean value (M= 2.4876 ) is low and falls near disagreement on the Likert scale. The reason is respondents ranked teacher dependence very low on the Likert scale. For instance, 1.8%respondents strongly agree with the statement "I learn better when the teacher explains something on the board". 4.0% of learners disagreed with the idea that they learn better when their teacher explains something on the board. 5.5% of learners remained neutral on this statement. 38.1%learners agreed with the statement "I learn better when the teacher explains something on the board". 50.6% of respondents strongly agreed with the idea that they learn better when the teacher explains something on the board. The next statement of this indicator is "I feel confident when the teacher is beside me while I am learning English". Results show that 5.8% of students strongly disagree with this statement. 10.7% of learners disagreed with the idea that they feel confident when their teacher is beside them. 12.7% of respondents remained neutral and did not take any position. 44.3% of respondents showed their agreement with the idea that they feel confident when their teacher is with them. 26.4% of learners strongly agreed with the concept that the presence of their teacher gives them confidence. So overall inclination of responses towards teacher dependence seems negative according to data analysis.

Teacher dependence and the role of the teacher are two distinct things. Teacher dependence is detrimental to learner autonomy. Teacher dependence deprives learners of creativity and critical thinking. On the other hand, the role of a teacher is very vital to make learners autonomous. According to Vieira (2003), the concept of autonomy is relevant for both the instructor and the student. It is not limited to the student as is commonly believed. Perhaps we have spent too much time considering students and learning processes and not enough time considering teachers and teaching processes.

Voller (1997) has described three roles of teachers. These roles are:

1. Teacher’s role as facilitator

2. Teacher's role as a counsellor

3. Teacher's role as a source

All the roles of teachers are important and play their part to make learners autonomous. As a facilitator teacher helps and guides learners I arranging different activities of group learning and task-based learning. As a counsellor, he advises his students to use appropriate strategies for learning in the classroom and outside the classroom as life-long learners. Teachers also act as sources and help learners in choosing learning material and making other choices.  




Group Work

The next component of this construct is group work. In responding to this part of the questionnaire majority of respondents (M=3.7902) agreed with the idea that they like group work. They considered group work beneficial for their language learning. For instance, 1.8% of respondents strongly disagreed with the statement "In English lessons, I like projects where I can work with other students". 3.6% of respondents disagreed with the idea of working on projects with other students. 11.4% of learners remained neutral and didn't take any position. 59.5% of learners agreed with the idea of project work and group work in English lessons whereas 23.7% of respondents strongly agreed with the statement that favours project work and group work. The next statement of this indicator is "I find it more useful to work with my friends than working on my own for the English lesson". Results show that 2.3% of respondents strongly disagreed with this statement. 4.8% of respondents disagreed with the statement that prefers group work to work individually. 20.4% of respondents remained neutral and didn't take any position on this statement. 50.7% of respondents agreed with the idea of working in a group instead of working individually whereas 21.7% of respondents strongly agreed with this statement.

Group activities have been identified as the best way for students to manage their working agenda, implement it, and regularly evaluate their learning results. These group activities follow the principle of cooperative learning. (Smith, 2001). Yasmin (2017) in her research paper has discussed the role of group work in fostering learner autonomy in the following words:

 “Findings show that teachers believe that collaborative learning is inculcating independence, responsibility, confidence, motivation, skills and positive interdependence which are required for autonomy promotion. They also believe that collaborative tasks, famous among Pakistani learners and few teachers, can be utilized as the right medium in autonomy development” (Yasmin, 2017).

Researchers have highlighted different strategies that involve learners in the process of language learning. Among these strategies, group work or collaborative work is taken as the most effective strategy. Little (1995) asserts that group work seems essential to generate and foster autonomy among learners and he terms it a capacity of learners that is psychological in nature.




Cognitive Skills

The fifth component of this construct as envisaged in the learner autonomy questionnaire was cognitive skills. The majority of respondents agreed (M=3.8918) that the use of cognitive and meta-cognitive skills helps them in language learning and developing language learning autonomy.  For instance, 2.2% of learners strongly disagreed with the statement "I use my own methods to learn vocabulary in English" and 8.6% of respondents disagreed with this statement. 12.4% of learners remained neutral and took no position on the idea of using their own methods to learn vocabulary. 52.6% of learners agreed with this idea whereas 24.2% of learners strongly agreed with the idea of devising one's own ways to learn vocabulary. The next statement of this indicator is "I know how I can learn English the best". Results of the analysis show that 2.0% of respondents strongly disagreed with this statement. 6.9% of learners disagreed with the idea of knowing the ways of learning English as autonomous learners. 18.9% of respondents remained neutral and took no position on the statement that suggests that learners know how to learn English best. 51.7% of respondents agreed that they know the ways to learn English best whereas 20.4% of learners strongly agreed with this statement.

Using strategies is helpful for the attainment of learner autonomy and ultimately for language proficiency. Researchers (Mandl & Friedrich 2006) have described different strategies to become autonomous learners and to gain language proficiency. These strategies may be motivational strategies, affective strategies, psychological strategies, elaborative strategies and revision strategies.  According to Mandl and Friedrich (2006), learning strategies are sequences of action that learners use for the attainment of learning goals. 




Intrinsic Motivation

The last component of this construct was intrinsic motivation. The majority of learners agreed (Mean=3.8188) with the idea that intrinsic motivation helps learners become autonomous learners. For instance, the first item of this indicator says "When I hear someone talking in English, I listen very carefully". According to the results, 2.0% of respondents strongly disagreed with this statement.  2.7% of respondents disagreed with the idea of listening to spoken English carefully. 12.3% of respondents did not take any position and remained neutral on the issue of listening to spoken English carefully. 40.0% of learners agreed with the idea and affirmed that they listen carefully when they hear someone speaking English whereas 43.0% of learners strongly agreed with the idea of paying attention to spoken English. The next statement of this indicator is "I want to talk in English with my family or friends". 2.7% of respondents strongly disagreed with this statement. 10% of respondents disagreed with the idea of talking in the target language with friends and family. 16.9% of respondents remained neutral on the idea of having a conversation in English with family and friends. 45.6% of learners agreed with the 

idea of speaking English with family circle and friends whereas 24.9% of learners strongly agreed with this statement. 

Acquiring knowledge is a complex phenomenon and arranging and placing knowledge so that it becomes a part of long-term memory is a problematic process. Elaborative strategies help in creating a link between new information and already stored knowledge ( Friedrich & Mandl 2006). This process makes it possible to understand and remember new information. The use of mnemonics and analogies by the students is an example of using elaborative techniques.  Sometimes creative teachers invent certain techniques to make the job of learning easy.  Mnemonics are used to memorize for instance vocabulary in language learning. Making acronyms to explain a certain phenomenon is one such example. Sometimes poetic lines are composed to inculcate certain rules. All these strategies are useful as they involve the learner in the learning process by making the process a fun experience. Oxford (1999 b) notices that strategy use asserts a significant impact on language learning proficiency. She has mentioned six strategies that language learners can use to enhance their language proficiency.  These strategies are: 

? Cognitive strategies 

? Metacognitive strategies

? Memory related strategies

? Compensatory strategies

? Affective strategies

? Social strategies

The use of all these teaching techniques enhances the communicative competence of learners and makes them more autonomous. Cognitive strategies help learners in manipulating knowledge and information. This information may be in the form of induction, deduction, notes taking, summarizing and inferences. On the other hand, meta-cognitive strategies help students how to plan, monitor and assess their language learning process. Then there are compensatory strategies that help learners to infer or make guesses while learning. Good learners also use these strategies for the enhancement of their proficiency. Encouragement and motivation are taken as effective strategies. These strategies help learners in maintaining their emotional balance and overcoming their anxiety. According to Oxford and Nykos (1993), motivation is taken as the strongest predictor of the use of strategies. Then there are social strategies that include asking for help, questioning and sharing worries. These strategies make learners cooperative and enhance their social skills. Language learning strategies (LLS) indicate a visible shift in learners and learning from teacher and teaching. Recent research in educational psychology and pedagogy discusses learning strategies and their usage as a part of learning processes. (Wegner, 2013).

Conclusion

Statistical analysis of data received from BS English learners of Southern Punjab indicated that learners of southern Punjab have a fair degree of learner autonomy. The questionnaire was divided into six factors. These factors were Goal setting, Choice of learning content, Role of teacher/ teacher dependence, Group learning, Cognitive abilities and Intrinsic motivation. The majority of the learners agreed that they have got autonomy in setting goals and choice of learning content. They also agreed that they also get the opportunity of group learning. They use different cognitive strategies in learning a second language. They claimed that they were also motivated towards learning English. During the distribution of the questionnaire, the researcher asked different questions from learners about the attitude of teachers regarding the promotion of autonomy in the class. Students answered that their teachers give them freedom of choice regarding the choice of learning content. They also affirmed that teachers also allow group learning in the form of presentations and sometimes in the form of literary events. The same question was asked of the teachers during interviews to triangulate the results. The teacher's view was found slightly different from that of the learners. Teachers agreed that BS English learners of Southern Punjab exercise some autonomy in the form of choice of learning content and group learning but they have not attained the level of setting their own goals. Teachers said that setting goal is the highest order of autonomous learning and our learners are not capable of setting their own learning goals or exercising proactive autonomy as Littlewood (1999) called it. This view of teachers is also in line with previous research that claims that Asian learners usually have a reactive sort of autonomy in which learning goals and directions are set by others but once directions are set learners are capable of achieving their learning goals. This is the answer to our first research question. This same data also gives us the answer to our second question. Our students have a desire of enjoying learner autonomy. Though they have a vague idea of the concept, they agree that the practice of learner autonomy may enhance their language proficiency and boost their confidence. They also agree that their teachers give them some degree of learner autonomy in the form of choice of learning content and encourage group work in the form of presentation. They had no idea of self-assessment or formative assessment. Moreover, they are heavily under the influence of the examination system and the focus of their attention is on attaining good grades and marks. They get no opportunity for task-based or project-based learning. This study recommends that awareness about the benefits of learner autonomy should be made clear before the learners. Teachers should be trained to incorporate this concept in their classrooms activities. Curriculum should be so designed to make room for practicing modern concepts like learner autonomy and self-assessment and self-directed learning.  

References

• Al-Jarrah et,al (2018). The application of metacognition, cognition and constructivism in teaching writing skills. European Journal of Foreign language Teaching, 3(4).
• Anderson, G. (2005). Fundamentals of Educational Research, The Falmer Press, UK Autonomy as a Central Concept of Foreign Language Learning. Special Issue of Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses, 38, 109-126.
• Benson, P. (2001). Teaching and researching autonomy in language learning. London: Longman.
• Benson, P. (2007). Autonomy in language teaching and learning. Language Teaching, 40(1), 21–40.
• Benson, P., & Voller, P. (2014). Autonomy and Independence in Language Learning. Routledge.
• Boud, David. (1988). Moving towards autonomy. In David Boud (ed.), Developing student autonomy in learning (2nd edn.), 17–39. New York: Kogan Page.
• Boyer, N. R., & Usinger, P. (2015). Tracking pathways to success: triangulating learning success factors. Int. J. Self- Directed Learn. 12, 22–48.
• DANG, T. T. (2010). Learner Autonomy in EFL Studies in Vietnam: A Discussion from Sociocultural Perspective. English Language Teaching, 3(2).
• Dörnyei, Z. (2003) Questionnaires in Second Language Research: Construction, Administration, and Processing. Lawrence Erlbaum Associations, Mahwah.
• Egel, Ä°. P. (2003), The Impact of the European Language Portfolio on the Learner Autonomy of Turkish Primary School Students, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Anadolu University, EskiÅŸehir.
• Friedrich, H. F. & Mandl, H. (2006): Handbuch Lernstrategien. Handbook of Learning Strategies. Göttingen: Hogrefe.
• Gardner, D & Miller, L. (1999). Establishing self-Access: Theory to practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
• Healy, D. (1999). Theory and research: Autonomy and language learning. In J. Egbert & E. HansonSmith (Eds.), CALL environments: research, practice, and critical issues Alexandria, Va.: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages.
• Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy and Foreign Language Learning. Oxford/New York: Pergamon Press.
• Kenny, B. (1993). For more autonomy. System, 21(4), 431–442.
• Little, D. (1995). Learning as dialogue: The dependence of learner autonomy on teacher autonomy. System, 23(2), 175– 181.
• Little, D. (2003). Tandem Language Learning and Learner Autonomy. In Autonomous Language Learning in Tandem, 37–44. Sheffield: Academy Electronic Publication Ltd.
• Nyikos, M., & Oxford, R. L.(1993). A factor- analytic study of language learning strategy use: Interpretations from information processing theory and social psychology. Modern Language Journal,77 (1), 11-22.
• Oxford, R. (2003). Toward a more systematic model of L2 learner autonomy. In D. Palfreyman & R. Smith (Eds.), Learner autonomy across cultures: Language education perspectives 75- 91. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Oxford, R. L. (1999b). Relationships between learning strategy use and language proficiency in the context of learner autonomy and self-regulation. In L. Bobb (Ed.).
• Pennycook, A. (1997). Cultural Alternatives and Autonomy. In P. Benson and P. Voller (eds), Autonomy and Independence in Language Learning. London: Longman.
• Smith, R. (2001). Group work for autonomy in Asia: Insights from teacher-research. AILA Review, 15, 70-81.
• Smith, R., & Ushioda, E. (2009). 'Autonomy': under whose control? In R. Pemberton, S. Toogood & A. Barfield (Eds.), Maintaining control: Autonomy and language learning, 241-253. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
• Vieira, F. (2003). Addressing constraints on autonomy in school contexts – Lessons from working with teachers. In Learner Autonomy Across Cultures Language Education Perspectives, R. Smith & D. Palfreyman (eds), 220–39. London: Palgrave
• Wegner, C et.al (2013). The importance of learning strategies and how the project ‘Kolumbus-Kids’ promotes them successfully. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 1(3), 137- 143.
• Yasmin, M., & Sohail, A. (2017). Realizing Learner Autonomy in Pakistan: EFL Teachers’ Beliefs about Their Practices. International Journal of English Linguistics, 8(2), 153.